The Evening Star TUESDAY, DECEMBER 21, 1875.

Evening Star, Issue 4001, 21 December 1875, Page 2

The Evening Star TUESDAY, DECEMBER 21, 1875.

The Dunedin election is over—the electors have made their choice, and the result is pretty much what was expected by everyone. We regret that Mr Reynolds is not amongst the successful candidates, and feel assured that in time to come many who opposed him will acknowledge that his main fault was that he was somewhat - perhaps unwillingly—in advance of his time in regard to constitutional changes. So far as we are concerned the differences between our views and those of the elected members are so few, and our agreement with them on most subjects so complete, that we can cordially accept them as representatives. The very essence of our present mode of representative government is the will of the majority, and to that, in the true spirit of British liberty we are quite content to bow, being well assured that time will show which party is in the right, and correct any mistakes that may have been committed. Therefore, without in any degree swerving from that course which we believe to be the correct one, and for the benefit of the City, the Province, and the Colony, we shall accord to those who have been chosen that free support that every man is entitled to when his motives are pure and his opinions and actions true. We look upon faction as a political curse. It has ever had our condemnation, and so long as the Evening Star is under its present management, it will never be its moving spring. There is too much serious work looming in the distance for permanent separation between men holding most views in common. Divested of electioneering clap-trap, the candidates were remarkably unanimous in their views as to the future form of the Constitution. None, however—not even Messrs Macandrew and Stout —have committed themselves irrevocably to a specific course of action. In this they acted wisely ; and if they are driven into a different track from that which an elector imagined they advocated, no disappointment must be felt. In the interests of the Colony, they may feel it a duty to disappoint some whose opportunity of knowing the exact situation is limited We have no doubt they will need this charity extending to them, and that their position will be found anything rather than a bed of roses, if the electors of Dunedin exact as much from them ns they did from Mr Reynolds. ‘The retirement from public life ot many who have for years devoted themselves to it, is a remarkable sign of the times. Some look forward to a long and stormy ■session, and do not feel inclined to incm the public odium of advocating theories that are for the time being unpopular.

Others eannot spare the time ; while a third class look to hying the burden of reconstruction upon now shoulders, and when, through some course distasteful to the public, an opening say next election—occurs, they calculate upon resuming their membership. Dunedin had several able meu to select from, and in this respect was fortunate. While most of them agreed pretty much on the question of constitutional changes, there are very serious questions m fv.turo on which wide differences are held, and wo arc glad to think, on that account, that the election has resulted as it has. It is by no means improbable that on one of those questions, and a most important one, however, they will not agree. To this we will not further allude, for to discuss it now is premature, -‘‘Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.'’- The chief danger in the present crisis of public matters is in checking the development of the Public Works and Immigration scheme. Already, in the experience of Otago, the consequence of rashness in stopping the sale of land has been felt ; but calamitous as was that mistake, its consequences were harmless compared with what would take place in the other case. So well do our newlvejeeted members know that, that we sincerely trust, on whatever other points they may differ from us, we shall bo able to work harmoniously together on that. Our difference is mainly- as to manner, not mat ter. If they' advocate self-government—so do we. Only we want it to bo real, and by it wo mean the administration of our own affaiis —not a clashing of legislatures. The end both they and we propose is the same—the difference is in our estimate of means. Wo trust that this difference roay r be so lessened as to enable us to act harmoniously with them in the work of constitutional reconstruction. iggi’" l ■